Effect of process variables on particle size and viability of<b><i>Bifidobacterium lactis</i></b>Bb-12 in genipin-gelatin microspheres
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gelatin microspheres cross-linked with genipin were developed to encapsulate the probiotic Bifidobacterium lactis Bb-12 The effects of different gelatin concentrations (10-19% w/v), bloom strengths (175 and 300), surfactants, stirring rates during emulsion formation and genipin concentrations (0-10 mM) on the microsphere sizes and viability of bacterial cells were investigated. Principal Component Analysis revealed microsphere size distribution differed depending on the presence or absence of surfactants as well as a trend of increasing micropshere size with increasing gelatin concentration and bloom strength. Lower stirring rates resulted in larger microspheres with higher encapsulation yields of bifidobacteria Microsphere size and cell viability were not significantly (p < 0.05) influenced by increasing genipin concentrations up to 10 mM whereas microsphere stability in simulated gastric juice increased with increasing genipin concentration. The encapsulation yields were higher in 175 bloom strength gelatin microspheres than in 300. Cold-stage scanning electron microscopy showed encapsulated bacteria distributed throughout the genipin cross-linked gelatin matrix.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it